Four word thinking

Competitive. Collaborative. Pressured. Insecure. These are four of the words most often used by scientists to describe research culture, as shared in the Wellcome Trust’s recent report What researchers think about the culture they work in.

Some of those terms could have positive or negative connotations in certain contexts. Healthy competition can spur people on to do things they didn’t know they were capable of, and many of us would attest that the pressure of a deadline focuses the mind. Yet 78% of those who answered the Wellcome survey agree that ‘high levels of competition have created unkind and aggressive research conditions’. For me, this sentiment can be explained by the insecurity that underlies many modern research careers.

This month in ChemistryWorld,Rebecca Trager explores the particular precariousness of postdocs. The widespread use of short-term contracts, coupled with the pressure to continually publish high-impact papers in order to win the next position, is bad enough. But on top of this comes the uncertainty of what it even means to be a postdoc, with definitions varying widely even within an institution, making it difficult for researchers to know what types of support they’re entitled to. It’s no wonder that some feel a lack of kindness in the system.

Rebecca Trager explores the particular precariousness of postdocs on p60. The widespread use of short-term contracts, coupled with the pressure to continually publish high-impact papers in order to win the next position, is bad enough. But on top of this comes the uncertainty of what it even means to be a postdoc, with definitions varying widely even within an institution, making it difficult for researchers to know what types of support they’re entitled to. It’s no wonder that some feel a lack of kindness in the system.

Even in industry, where permanent contracts are more common, company policy can drive unhealthy competition by threatening the job security of employees. As Derek Lowe discusses, some employers use annual performance reviews to rank employees, and in extreme cases fire those who end up near the bottom of this artificial league table. In such an environment, it’s all too easy to see your colleagues as rivals to be outmanoeuvred, or even sabotaged.

Even in industry, where permanent contracts are more common, company policy can drive unhealthy competition by threatening the job security of employees. As Derek Lowe discusses on p23, some employers use annual performance reviews to rank employees, and in extreme cases fire those who end up near the bottom of this artificial league table. In such an environment, it’s all too easy to see your colleagues as rivals to be outmanoeuvred, or even sabotaged.

It testifies to the character of most researchers that despite these pressures, they still view science as a collaborative endeavour. 61% of respondents to the Wellcome survey say that their workplace promotes collaboration; this is something that needs to continue and become even more widespread. Indeed, the rise of interdisciplinary, multinational research projects raises questions over whether there’s much science happening in the institutes of the other 39% of respondents.

Importantly, funders, societies, institutions, publishers and companies are starting to realise that they need to work with researchers to weed out the bad aspects of research culture and allow the good parts to flourish. But changing a culture takes time – something that those researchers who feel under most pressure in the existing research environment do not have.